Revision as of 20:23, February 14, 2012

Contents

Welcome!

Even if you are experienced on Wikipedia, I suggest you read our beginners guide, as we do a lot of things differently on the Psychology Wiki.

It is important to understand that the pages of Wikipedia reproduced here are used as placeholders. We expect 2/3rds of them to be substantially editied or rewritten so do feel free to change them markedly to fit the needs of the site.

Tip: you can sign your username on talk pages (like this one) using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically produce your name, date and time-stamp. Three tildes will just produce your name.

Signature

Thanks for your input

Just to say we appreciate your quality input. Do you have anymore references for the pages that you have done. eg more of Bowlby's Biblio. and do you know where any of this is available "full text" so we can link to it? Dr Joe Kiff - User:Lifeartist (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. What we are trying to do here is to gather together all the relevant references, say on Bowlby, and then to try to link these to Full text copies where available. Often in gathering the references together you can see that this leads to the creation of additional pages, say for example "criticisms of Bowlby", the "application of his theories in clinical practice" etc. We can go into more depth than a WP type encyclopedia building a professional resource for psychologists. There must be many different aspects of attatchment theory researched and we should have a page on each one. Try and use APA syle for references. The numbering of references is best avoided as this makes it difficult when we come to break articles up. come back to me if you need more advice.Dr Joe Kiff - User:Lifeartist (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Display

I'm using explorer version 6.0.2900.2180 and have no problems. I think thats the uptodate version? Have you tried setting the "skin" in your preferences. I use monoblock, thats the default, but you might find one of the others improves the situation. If that fail you might like to raise the issue on the Forum at Wikia or on the IRC channel at Wikia. Hope that helpsDr Joe Kiff - User:Lifeartist (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I have the same problem. I upgraded to IE7 a few weeks ago, but I've only had the "tab-overlap" problem for a few days...weird! I posted a question about it over at the Wikia Help Desk [1]. Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

More activity

Sorry for the delay in replying but we have had a holiday weekend here.

I think in the long run the national societies will have an important role to play in the furtherance of the project. This is an ideal oppurtunity for them to develop a free and publicly accessible summary of research and theory for each area of the discipline where there is a substantive literature. This would meet many of their ambitions for making our knowledge publically accessible. The key moves here, guaranteeing the accuracy of the material, are that eventually:

A) Editing of the wiki becomes restricted to professionals
B) That pages are peer reviewed and then locked, while improvements and updates proceed on a working copy. The peer reviewed pages can then be properly referenced.
Probably only the societies could organise and coordinate this.
I have had preliminary contact with the APA through the international section as I feel one of the many strengths of the project in the long term will be the translations into the languages of the world.
I havent done more on this front, partly due to a lack of time. But I also feel that it is worth developing the structure of the site further before expecting professional contributors to work on it, particularly aligning it with the APA thesaurus.
However I would welcome any efforts others might make to spread the word in professional circles. Dr Joe Kiff 16:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. So do you have any ideas about how we might procede?Dr Joe Kiff 23:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think beginning to only allow editing by professionals or requiring peer-review is very important and edits by known persons. I'd suggest inviting professionals in to edit. For example, asking those registered (and who are professionals and identified) to invite two others. I can certainly ask some of my colleagues to contribute and register if that would help. How does that sound? Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 01:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

RAD

Query for you on the RAD talkpage. Thanks Fainites 14:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dr Becker-Weidman,

you have not replied to my request on the RAD talkpage that you validate your sources for the statement that 'these children are likely to develop RAD' as I cannot find this statement directly or by implication in the two chapters from Cassidy and Shaver that you cite. Please provide the exact pages/passages/context that you rely on. You have also removed another editors sourced edit without discussion. Please discuss the reasons for your removal on the talkpage. Thank you.

I did reply on the talk page that I was providing a summary and paraphrase, not a direct quote. I cleaned up the article some by removing lines that were unclear or not relevant. cheers. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 22:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You have not really replied to my query as neither chapter you cite supports a summary or a paraphrase unless I am missing something. Please indicate the pages or paragraphs you are relying on to support the statement you make, as Lyons Ruth does not mention RAD at all and Greenberg only in a historical context. Also removing an editors recently added sourced quote with the edit summary 'cleanup' does not really count as cleanup I think you'll agree. It is not 'cleanup' just because you may disgree with the content.Fainites 22:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You are still not replying to the query about your claim that these two chapters support your edit, yet you keep replacing the edit. Please provide the evidence/page numbers/passages that these chapters support what you say about RAD. Saying you've already answered is not acceptable as you have not. Fainites 18:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

I note that you redirected Attachment therapy to the Attachment disorder page rather than the Attachment Therapy page, having first put your rewritten Attachment disorder article onto the Attachment therapy page. I have corrected this so that now Attachment therapy, with or without capitals goes to the Attachment Therapy page. Fainites 15:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

ACT etc.

I put the minimum of information on my user page and did that only at Joe's request. You may have some insight into why I did that. As for the IRS form, I've passed your request along-- I don't have the document. I assume you mean to provide yours for the Center-- or are you for-profit? J.M. Unsigned comment left by User:Jean Mercer 17:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by, "You may have some insight into why I did that" (meaning not put your substantial affiliation with ACT in your description of self...maybe you can explain what you mean? Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 20:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to hear from your group regarding providing their 990 form as required by the IRS. Perhaps you can expedite this. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 23:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello from Tom Michael

Hi Dr Weidman,

Thanks for welcoming me back, it was a great graduation ceremony yesterday. I'm very glad to see that since I was last working on this project we have attracted more professionals such as yourself. I am applying for my PhD today, so am just starting my career.

I have tidied up the list of papers on your page and fixed the link to the graduation hat. I am thinking of creating a userbox to contain all the information of peoples degrees, work experience, professional qualifications etc so that the site looks more standardised, and as an easy template for people who are new to Wiki's but an old hand in psychology.

The Washington Post

Nothing, really. I got carried away with eliminating red-links by adding articles. Probably fine to just delete that one. I'll be more careful in the future. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I found another way to eliminating red-links wihouth creating articles, if they are unrelated to psychology. I changed the links into like this: "wikipedia:Title of article|title of article" (with the double square brackets in place of the quotation marks) where it simply refer to wikipedia.--Janarius 13:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Very cool. I wonder, in instances such as these, do you think it better to link to wikipedia to just to removed the double-bracket links and eliminate the red-link? I don't have a strong feeling either way. It does occur to me that if the link isn't really related to psychology, maybe just eliminating the red-link may be better...if the reader is directed to wikipedia, we may loose the reader to browsing that site after following the link. What do you think? Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 19:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that removing the double-brackets seems best in order not to distract the readers from the article they're reading. In any case, most articles here are copied from wikipedia, so complete rewrites for these articles would eliminate most red-links and is more appropriate for this wiki.--Janarius 14:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but it's also a huge amount of work. Unless an article is clearly in the psychology area, I think it would probably be better to leave such links to wikipedia and sort though them once in a while for the ones that really need to be rewritten. Another approach might be to link to a historical version of a wikipedia article where the content is at least reasonable. Hkhenson 14:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of link

No, You did okay. Looks like spam to me anyway.--Janarius 15:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:Speedy Deletion

Alright, in that case I can set one up. That may happen tomorrow though, as I'm working on a term paper tonight. ChristineTalk 00:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything is all set up for speedy deletions. I've created Template:D which can be added to pages to be deleted. It can be added to a page with:

RE:Speedy Deletion Process

Sorry, a bit of spying I suppose. The purpose of speedy deletion is simply for it to be speedy, immediate. This applies to spam and unused images. If you think discussion should go on about, say, an unused image, discussing what article to place it on should just go on the talk page, but otherwise it should be deleted immediately. AfD's (Articles for Deletion) are the deletions that should really be discussed and have a special process, where admins and the community must agree. I'm not sure if you guys have that though.. =\ ChristineTalk 18:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. Yes, you make a good point and an important distinction. I agree with your thinking here. Speedy deletion should be immediate by an administrator. I don't think we have an AfD process, but we should get one in place so that we are prepared. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 19:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to look into that Art and set it up Dr Joe Kiff 23:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the template "Articles for deletion" since this is clearer for the novice user. This is great work, thank you...you are a gem! regards.Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 00:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving and deletion policy

As I understand it the way to archive pages is to create sub-pages. We dont have a policy on it but it would be worth drawing one up for clarities sake. I dont know if WP has one we could adapy. The same too for page deletion policy. Lets see what you can come up with. Thanks Dr Joe Kiff 06:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me Art. Go ahead on the redlinks and we can adapt those pages too. Thanks Dr Joe Kiff 07:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed all the redlinks and will now move on to the linked pages that also have redlinks to fix those. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 15:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Chat

Hi!

After you log in, you simply type what you want to say in the bar at the bottom of the screen, and hit enter. After a second or two, you're message should appear on the screen where everybody else who is logged in can see it.

However, I have heard that the chat doesn't work very well for some people with certain browsers. I can't remember which ones. I use Internet Explorer, and I've never had a problem.

I don't imagine you'll find people on the Psychology Chat very often. You're best bet would probably be to schedule one with other Psychology Wikia users. If there's a certain time you'd like to schedule one, I would suggest posting a time to chat, (perhaps with some suggestions on what topics you'd like to discuss), at a forum I just created:

Hazing

I noticed you pulled Hazing over from Wikipedia. That article is a *mess* in its current version, it's been subjected to a number of uncorrected vandalisms. I suggest going back 20 versions or more to a decent version. Hkhenson 03:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine with me if you think that would be an easier place to begin editing. Do you want to do that or would you prefer I do that? Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 13:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A note on Caps

Hi Art. I've noticed that capitalizations are causing a problem. The format is to capitalize the first word and use lower caps for remaining words unless it is a proper name. So Working Memory redirects to Working memory etc. Its always worth checking if the lower case article exists as it can be an opportunity to update or improve it. Dr Joe Kiff 22:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see that now. Thanks for the "heads-up" on that. I will note that and be more careful in the future. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

How to contribute

Hi Art. It seems a long time since we have communicated. I have just had my head down working on developing the structure. Danny has given us pause for thought though. How can you help - or more appropriately how could we make it clearer how people could help? I've appreciated your work on the red links, are there other things you would like to do? Could this page be improved? What do you think? Dr Joe Kiff 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess we've both been quite busy. If you think my continuing work on the redlinks is helpful and a good use of my time, I will continue...if you think I could be doing something else that would be of greater significance for the site, I'm happy to work on that instead. I will look at the Tasks to do list to see what else might grab my attention. However, I'd like to use my time in a way that you think will most advance the site. Regards. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 19:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I find routine tasks are good for when I am tired but look to do more involved tasks when I feel fresh. Do you feel you could work more in depth on areas that you are familiar from in your work. Perhaps sort out sections on assessment in child clinical psychology or other things that interest you, that you are familiar with, and where your professional expertise can be brought to bear? Dr Joe Kiff 23:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, that sounds like a good plan. I'll focus on time on the clinical assessment of children articles (fixing, and adding content and new articles where necessary), as well as attachment theory, child welfare, and adoption/foster care issues. I'll leave the red-link fixing for those times I only have a few minutes. Best regards Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 12:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Art. It looks as if that page has been deleted now. Dr Joe Kiff 07:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

IPP Employment perspective

Dr Becker,

This POC would have nothing to do with Employment. It is an idea, that requires a LOT of work, to create an infrastructure, and then would have applications. Not sure, if i am making sense to you, since the terms i am using are from Software development, but they are applied to psychology.

I am curious to know your interest in this subject, or if you have any insight/advice

No, I don't quite understand all you've written. I only wrote my comment to encourage you to write an article in my role here as an admin and to welcome you to this site and encourage participation. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 18:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Mike

Dr. Weidman, my e-mail address as per your request: mullerm62@yahoo.com. I previously entered my e-mail when I registered to make edits. While much of my knowledge, as a gay man regarding female sexuality, might be considered anecdotal, the vast majority of my assertions were gained from my participation as a volunteer in a five year gender study co-ordinated by a local psychotherapist/sex therapist. During this study a necessary element involved the reading of related books and reports regarding sexual subject matter. I will certainly be happy to add the necessary citations where possible. Please correct me if I've gained the incorrect idea: it is permissible to note the author but not any copyrighted material. Look forward to hearing from you. Mr. Mike Muller 602-790-7920

You can cite author and relevant citation information (journal, volume, page, publisher, etc.) You can put in quotes from publications, so long as you provide citations sufficient for others to be able to find the source and read it. I would suggest you provide citations and sources for all the material you added to the article...if the material is merely your own opinion, then you can place it on the article's talk page...or I can more it for you.

Please check your registration. When I tried to e-mail you, we have you listed with no e-mail address.

Finally, be sure to sign your comments with the four "~" ok?Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 00:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

removal of my edits to Acmegenisis

I am more than a little miffed at finding two of my edits removed. If this has been done because I have not followed proper protocols, please forgive me. I have only just begun to use a computer on a regular basis. If, as I suspect, my assertions are being rejected due to disagreement on your part, I have a problem with that - one that can I hope we can resolve without delay. I realize that many of the ideas I post, as garnered from my five year participation in an aforementioned gender study, are quite radical and even political in their juxtaposition to accepted sexual norms. This will not stop me from sharing these findings, no matter how uncomfortable they might leave many, especially hidebound heterosexual men, feeling. As a lifelong Gay male I found the gender study not only liberating for the women seated next to me, but quite invigorating for my own efforts to exist independent of the invasive patriarchal control with which straight men in our society try to set the sexual rules and mores for all of us. I do not expect to find my ideas thus truncated or outright removed. Am I correct that this page belongs to all people of independent thought? Or have I, once again, inadvertently stumbled up yet another biased attempt to deny the scientific reality that many would prefer to ignore for their own ego-saving or religious reasons. I have noted that large swaths of the article have absolutely no citations, whatsoever - are they contained off page in another document that I am unaware of? I will follow your advice and look into the various tools that you have directed me to. I appreciate feedback. I do not wish to find my entries removed, however, based on procedural or other oversights on my part. I look forward to your reply... MR. MIKE
Mr. Mike 18:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted material after you had added and edited your previous additions and assumed that since you did not have citations and sources for those previous addition, that none existed. As you say, much of what you added is your own personal experience. Such comments are quite appropriate on the talk page. As I also suggested on your talk page, please read carefully the instructions for new users as mentioned in the Welcome message at the top of your talk page. It is very important to have citations and references for material that is of a "scientific reality." Finally, as I also suggested, it may be more helpful if you put suggested additions on the talk page for review and comment by other editors and, once strengthened and supported, this material can be added. This will avoid having to remove material based on procedural and other editing problems. As always, feel free to contact me by e-mail, once you have activated your e-mail here. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 19:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

help with picture edit

The nature of that info box is such that the pic goes at the bottom. There is no way to change that unless you deleted the pic from the box and add the pic as a separate element...do you want (or want me) to do that? Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 02:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think it will look good, yes I appreciate your help, thanks a lot. Chrisgj 04:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much for your help. I decide just to have the pic since it looked cluttered with the pic on the left and the other stuff wasn't really needed.Chrisgj 20:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

revisions to mind-body problem

Hello.
I'm deleting them again. It is misleading to equate the "mind-body problem" with dualism. To then say that dualism has been overcome by French structuralism makes no historical sense at all.

I did leave the other paragraph that you added, to reflect the view that of many scientists.

This article had a call on it for an expert to edit it. I'm an expert and I edited it.
Since this article is in the philosophy section, perhaps you will listen to a philosopher on this?

Links with commas

Hi Art. My apologies for the confusion over the links with commas. At one point I was overzealous and thought that was the way to go, but it has left a bit of a cleanup operation behind it. The problem is that had their been a wiki called Approaches we would have ended up on that wiki. I first notice the problem when I was doing links off the India article and ended up working on the India wiki!! Generally I now use the format xxxx - xxx but only where the alternative is too wordy or cumbersome eg Depression - epidemiology rather than epidemiology of clinical depression. This has the advantage of listing neatly in the category section. Depression - epidemiology, Schizophrenia - epidemiology etc. The approaches links are best changed to the vanilla version as per humanistic psychology as that aligns better with the thesaurus and any links and refs can be incorporated into the bottom of the article if necessary. Dr Joe Kiff 14:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a break

Hi Art
Just to let you know I am away for a weeks break. I would have emailed but my provider has been down. Just in case you wondered where I was. Dr Joe Kiff 23:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Art

My name is Kalinka. I'm a student in Dobrich, Bulgaria. Now I'm studying the science - Artifical intellegence. I write the course project and I want to know some things.
Have a relations between expert system and psychology?
Have a relations between cognitive science and methods on Expert system?

Good day!

Why the other people understand me? I asked you - Have a any relation between methods for creating an expert system and cognitive psychology?

Excuse me, if I disturbing you!

Kind regards!!!

No, you are not disturbing me, I just don't understand your question, "Have a any relation between methods for creating an expert system and cognitive psychology?" If I try to understand your question, I'd guess you are asking if there is a relationship between creating expert systems in computers and the field of cognitive psychology. If that is the question, I'd say yes. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 12:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

kokology

Hi maybe you could take a look at my kokology page/kokology page discussion
--Scatterp 13:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

not sure what you mean by "opaque" could you give me more detail on that i agree it really needs some more simplified writing but want to do that after i have everything detailed
there i am currently working on independent references or citations to support the statements any input you can give would be great its hard since its all japanese
--Scatterp 22:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean not clear or easily understood. Once you have re-written the article and have references added, I'd be glad to read it and make specific suggestions and edits. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 23:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

complex systems theory and double bind

In 1959, in Minimal Requirements for a Theory of Schizophrenia (1959)*, G Bateson said, "... the proposed hierarchic classification of learning and/or context is an ordering of what to the Newtonian looks like chaos (my emphasis)..."--and Bateson had been working with cybernetics/complex systems theory since 1942, seeing it as a paradigm or metascience that increased understanding, including in the behavioral sciences.

L. Bale says "...many scholars and practitioners of the social/behavioral sciences, as well as the humanities (myself included) were first introduced to cybernetics through Bateson's particular understanding of the cybernetic paradigm. Yet, he seldom offered his audience more than a cursory reference to the key principles underlying cybernetics. Thus the purpose of this essay is both: to present the fundamental principles underlying what is now often referred to as the 'first' cybernetics..." (op cit p. 2)

Complex systems theory helps us understand the interdependence of the parts of a message and so it helps understand double binds. Hence my statement that double bind theory is more clearly understood in the context of complex systems theory.

*in Minimal Requirements... Bateson says, "My purpose, therefore, in the present lecture is not so much to discuss the particular theory of schizophrenia which we have been developing at Palo Alto. Rather, I want to indicate to you that this theory and others like it have impact upon ideas about the very nature of explanation....a discussion of the implications of the double bind theory for the wider field of behavior science and even, beyond that, its effect upon evolutionary theory and biological epistemology." As an interdisciplinary scientist, Bateson often looks beyond his immediate subject.

Got your message. Will do

--Margaret9mary 21:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)You were the one who changed it. I Wanted to run it by you.

P.S. I'm not a computer person. Computers have very exacting rules and my brain doesn't work that way. So if I'm in too much of a hurry I make mistakes and interfere with its programming. And one of the few people here on this campus who really knows the ins and outs is the head of the virtual campus who has no knowledge or interest in double bind theory. so I'm pretty much on my own. Any assistence from you would be greatly appreciated.--Margaret9mary 22:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made numerous changes in the Wikipedia version of Double Bind since the Psych Wiki transfered the updated version on Jan 6, 2009. Is there an easy way to transfer those changes from Wikipedia to Psych Wiki and vice versa?--Margaret9mary 23:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of, except by copying the entire article over. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 23:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Main Page sandbox

Hello again

Thank you for your answers!

Hello aweidman

I have received the message that you do not like my edits. I strongly disagree with some of the deletions of my edits, while others may be appropriate. You stated that my edits oversimplified material, and I overall would say that you are wrong in that I use a much more understandable and wiki friendly format by using specific lingusitic tools. Just one example, of which is a quite common mistake, is in my revison of a sentence structure in the "love" article. I changed beginning of the sentence quote "The word love" to "Love", because "The word" adds no informational value to the sentence or the concept of love. I believe this is an informational site, and I find it odd that you don't appreciate changes that articulate the specific points of an article. I know there are countless examples of this nature that I could address, but I don't think it would be worth my time, so take this into significant consideration. You also stated that I delete important material, which may or may not be true, but is also a very subjective statement on your part. I am not saying that you are completely wrong, but I think that you are wrong in the majority of the cases that you would use as justification of "the deletion of important material". I would like to have my edits respected more than what has been, because I can be a valuable help to this site if you would give me the opportunity. Thank you for your time.Joshlepaknpsa 14:36, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry you were offended. That was not my intention. I may have been too hasty in some of the revisions as I was a bit rushed that day. Maybe we could take each one article by article? Would that help?

I understand that your intentions were for the good of the articles, but mine were also for the benefit of those who seek information from these articles. I appreciate your apology and I would be glad to go over any article in part or in whole that you would like to discuss with me. I want to stress that I make edits very carefully and I go over my changes word for word with great consideration. I realize that many users do not take the time or energy that I do in making revisions, and it bothers me some. I would like to know what you require in order to accept my revisions, and how I can get my revisions respected by the moderators of this site. Joshlepaknpsa 13:26, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know what you think about my edits to delusion, I thought I had a very powerful definition of the concept.Joshlepaknpsa 14:05, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

A message from John Bradshaw - Please have the courtesy to not delete the content of my pages

I am not sure why you feel it was appropriate to delete the content of my page - however I feel your actions are totally unwarranted. i am replacing the page and would appreciate a phone call from you () my office or my email youcanheal@aol.com prior to you editing or deleting it again. As you know, it takes an extraordinary effort of time and money to place the contents on the webpages. I can assure you that any material I place on the web if my own copywrite as I retain all of or releases to all of my interviews. Don't you have anything better to do? I can see no notification of your reasons to change my page as require by WIKI Please try to be respectful - I can assure you that I work just as hard as you and am still working at age 76. Sincerely, Oktobuy 05:11, May 15, 2010 (UTC)John Elliot Bradshaw, Sr. ww.johnbradshaw.com

Your article would seem to be more appropriate for your user page and not an article. I am recommending that it be moved to your user page. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 09:08, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

re recent changes

Hi Art
I work in the monobook skin. Select this in your preferences/skin. This always seems so much clearer to me. On the left hand panel there, under "navigation" is the "recent changes" link that seems to be working OK now. Thanks for all your help.Dr Joe Kiff 08:24, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Over ten years ago I saw photos in relation to Harlow's work which compared normal neurological development and the consequences of extreme social/sensory deprivation. It may have been Harlow's work but I couldn't say. What it showed were two photos of neurological connections, one resembling a tree with thousands of branches and twigs and the other looking like a tree with all but the scafolding branches lopped off.

And I have an intense eiditic memory dating from the first time I saw the film of Harlow on public television--not like the still photos, you could see how the babies moved. Since I'm very visually and kinesthetically oriented it stayed with me. It wasn't so much fear as the poverty of neurological connections that made it difficult for them to respond to strange new things around them--(and of course that would cause fear).--Margaret9mary 20:07, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Probably not Harlow. Point me to the picture and I'll take a look. Certainly lack of stimulation will affect specific parts of the brain and the extent and complexity of neuronal connectivity. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 07:39, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding.

Too much time has passed for me to remember where I saw those photos, but Harry Harlow had scores of grad students and post-grad researchers working with him over the years, and many of them--and others--followed up on the leads he gave. Deborah Blum may be just a science journalist, but for Love at Goon Park, she interviewed as many of Harlow's ex-students and colleagues she could find. It's a primary source for information on Harlow.

It would take considerable work to research all the work that has been done in the last 30 years, but easily accessible and brief articles, even those written before, are an indication of the direction taken. Of course brain imaging of all types has been done in recent years.

Steve Suomi is chief of the Laboratory of Comparative Ethology, part of NIH. William A. Mason, another, is at UC-Davis.

Mary Carlson, a neurobiologist at Harvard Medical School, has studied the Romanian orphans (a tragic confirmation of what Harlow demonstrated in socially isolated rhesus infants). She edits columns for The Science of Mother's Day--for laypeople. I haven't confirmed she was a student of his but she was at the University of Wisconsin at Madison in the mid-1960s and I think got her PhD there).

In a brief article in Psychology Today (Dec. 1979) Alienation of Affection, Dr. James W. Prescott says, "What Harlow could not know at the time of his dramatic experiments in the late 1950s and 1960s was that these behavioral disturbances were accompanied by brain damage. More recent studies suggest that during formative periods of brain growth, certain kinds of sensory deprivation--such as lack of touching and rocking by the mother--result in incomplete or damaged development of the neuronal systems that control affection, for instance, a loss of the nerve-cell branches called dendrites" (and refers to the vestibular and somesthetic systems), "And this portion of the brain is one of those most susceptible to "shaping"..." He lists 9 researchers in the field.

A summary of a Time-Life Documentary Rock A Bye Baby (1970) says, "...maternal-infant isolation that leads to sensory deprivation can cause developmental brain damage. These facts show that mother love has a neurobiological basis that is essential for life." and has a 3-page biography.--Margaret9mary 01:23, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

randomness

please make an article on it and include a gallery of random pictures.

for me, please insert a picture of a penguin with the caption "Penguins have nothing to do with this article."

can you please also help me fix my sig. so that that picture shows up next to my username?

Help

Hi, Thanks for your contribution on the individualistic and collectivist culture page. It has help me a lot with my studies. I read somewhere that Cognitive behavioural therapy more orientated to individualistic culture. What is in CBT that makes it more suited to western culture that needs to be adapted to suit cross cultural?

Help

Hi, Thanks for your contribution on the individualistic and collectivist culture page. It has help me a lot with my studies. I read somewhere that Cognitive behavioural therapy more orientated to individualistic culture. What is in CBT that makes it more suited to western culture that needs to be adapted to suit cross cultural? Naz11 19:47, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

I'd never heard that. I'm not sure that is an accurate statement or characterization. Can you point me to a reference or citation? Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 09:57, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Hi here is the link. I have sent another message but i dont it worked. If it does show up please feel free to delete it. I look forward reading what you think. Thanks Naz11 19:47, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

sorry, I don't see that; can you provide the specific quote and point me in that direction so I can see it? Also, please sign your quote with four "~" Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 01:23, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Ok I will look for it again. I googled that quote to confirm that is where i got it from and it did show up. It might just take a bit of time as my tired eyes are winning. Thank you. I will make sure I do that in future too. In the mean time do you agree with that quote? Naz11 19:47, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Can you please sign your questions and comments so I know to whom I am responding? Thanks. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 01:49, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

You need to sign your posts with the four tilde's "'~'" please. Otherwise we can't tell who is posting very easily without doing some research. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 11:53, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I just notice an email and will make the relevant changes when i get back thanks. This is the first time i have done something like this. So please bare with me.

I am hoping that others who are reading this will understand that I am a student looking for some clarity. Thanks. Naz11 19:47, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at the research again and I found the location of the quote. It is in the discussion section , 4th paragraph down. "The meta-analysis..." Naz11 19:58, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

A minor point and only one of several possible, and even more plausible, explanations. From the article
A second possible explanation for this finding may be associated with the degree of similarity of the ethnicity of the therapist to the ethnicity of the subject. Previous research demonstrates that a high degree of match between the subject and therapist's ethnicity is correlated with more effective therapy outcomes (Carson et al., 1988). A third possible explanation for this finding may be that there were more Caucasian therapists than therapists from other ethnic backgrounds. The literature regarding cognitive behavioral treatment and ethnic variables as a focus is essentially silent. The results from this review further indicate that more research is needed in this arena.
Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 20:12, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

PPS Margaret9mary email

PPS. I sent you an e-mail 12-15-2010. After sending I noticed that I had accidentally gotten logged out. This is to confirm that I Margaret9mary am the one who sent it. --Margaret9mary 03:25, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

I have no references or citations and nothing to suggest because it is new hypothesis and I labelled it as syndrome. It needs research to validate. I thought publishing it on Psychology wikia may give exposure in furthering research. If you cannot accept it please let me know where else can I publish?

I hope to see one of Psychology research Fellow pick this up and study.

Please advise.

thanks so much.

It would be helpful if you registered with a username and added an e-mail address to facilitate communication. Also, pls sign you posts on talk pages with the four tilde's "~"

Re Attachment

When I saw your note of Feb. 13, 2011 I wondered why you sent me such a message. My primary interest in editing anything on WP and Psychology Wiki is good science, and readability for non-experts. When it comes to taking any position I first listen extensively to various positions and seek to find any common ground that might exist--even between extreme opponents*.

I've been patiently waiting for progress to be made on Attachment theory since the mid-1990s after reading Bowlby's Attachment. In 2006-7 I did extensive further reading and thinking about it for a paper (and used WP for a starting point for reading). Not until Dec 2010 did I involve myself with the WP/Wiki articles.

In the last 2 months I've been "parsing" Bowlby's Attachment--examining how it's constructed, reading and rereading carefully, etc. One of the most obvious points was the importance for Bowlby of "control" systems theory--this is a scientific worldview,--see Bale, below (however it was clear Bowlby was struggling to put into words the implications of systems theory for attachment theory and I've long been aware of the difficulties)--In the Index under "feedback control of behavior" more than 160 pages are listed--over 2/5 of the book. To make a comparison, on Fainites urging I purchased the Handbook of Attachment. In the index of a book of nearly 1000 pages it has listed under "systems theory"--4 pages; under "feedback"--nothing. Clearly, Bowlby thought it central to his understanding and yet systems theory has been virtually left out of the Handbook.

Lawrence S. Bale has provided the best description of the paradigms of systems theory and of classic science in the first 8 pages of his article, Gregory Bateson, Cybernetics and the Social/Behavioral Sciences (1995)--http://www.narberthpa.com/Bale/lsbale_dop/cybernet.htm . (if this doesn't go through, the link is in the WP article on Gregory Bateson under Further Reading).

The greatest problem which has delayed the understanding of systems theory has been to translate nonlinear thinking into terms linear thinkers can understand. I first saw this difficulty in the late 1970s in Gregory Bateson's Steps to an Ecology of Mind.

Note--my first insight into common ground was during the Cold War when I realized that neither Americans nor Soviets wanted to die--the U.S. military had dubbed their position with the acronym MAD (mutual assured destruction).

The extremely long comments I wrote on the Talk page of the Attachment theory article on WP was my struggle to understand the conflict in views and how it could be remedied. But eventually it became evident that because my brain is wired to be a nonlinear, interdisciplinary thinker I was reading Bowlby with systems theory whereas apparently many people missed it.

One of the reasons I posted the comments on Dr. Joe's page is that he did much of the editing on the Psychology Wiki article on Systems theory; it shows a much greater understanding of systems theory than the WP article.

What does one do when the scientific paradigm central to Bowlby's understanding of Attachment has been virtually ommitted from the Handbook of Attachment (and left out of the WP article)? And what does one do when so many others are still struggling to find a way to define (complex) systems theories in a comprehensible way?

Gregory Bateson was criticized for using too many metaphors, but let me offer one of my own.

Understanding attachment without including (complex) systems theory is like understanding a tennis match by watching only one of the players, and not watching the ball. One can study one player's actions exhaustively, but without seeing the ball and the other player and the resulting interaction one has missed most of it.Margaret9mary 23:21, February 18, 2011 (UTC)Margaret9mary 23:28, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Good points, Margaret. The attachment system is a biologically based system that operates like a thermostat. Attachment behaviors (proximity seeking) are exhibited when the child feels a threat. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 22:22, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

A Question--and why it matters.

Yes, Bowlby recognized attachment as a biologically based system for which reason systems theory is an important and integral part of it.

::My question--why has Systems theory been virtually left out of Attachment theory?

Alas, I'm not exaggerating.

To put it bluntly, scientists are still trying to describe non-linear systems with linear concepts, and so decades have passed with little progress.

It's like trying to do modern physics without relativity.

Explanation--

After buying the Handbook of Attachment I looked over the articles. Didn't find anything specific referring to systems theory so I checked the index. Four (4) pages are listed under "Systems theory." Zero for "Cybernetics." Zero for "Complex systems." Etc., etc.

In Attachment the index lists over 160 pages under "feedback control of behavior." -all of Chapters 3 and 5, parts of two other chapters and more. It is central to understanding attachment.

I then took a closer look at the various Wikipedia articles on systems theory. The Psychology Wiki article is the best of them, especially the section--Features of Complex Systems in Nature (except it's missing "homeostasis").

But all of them suffer from trying to use linear concepts to describe non-linear systems.

And why does it matter?

To give the short answer--in systems theory you don't consider just the child's behavior.

The child has an attachment behavioral system within itself, but the mother-child dyad is also an attachment behavioral system. The child is a sub-system within that larger system. A mother (or other) who is securely attached is more likely to raise a child who is securely attached because attachment is a system that transmits attachment patterns--the "intergenerational transmission of attachment." (in Bretherton. Origins of Attachment, etc) Margaret9mary 02:26, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

All of the writers who describe attachment theory and those who do research discuss the concept that attachment does not reside within the person but is an interactional construct and, as such, seem to implicitly use a "systems" perspective. Bowlby does in his descriptions as do various other writers who discuss the attachment system and attachment behaviors and the function of each (system & behaviors),etc. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 02:35, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering why there there seemed to be an editing conflict...a fast response! Hi! and Yes, attachment is an interactional construct. But why do you say "seem to implicitly use a "systems" perspective"? That sounds so uncertain--because it's true. A lack of a clear understanding of complex systems leads to inconsistencies. The ultimate implications are often missed. But this isn't just in the field of Attachment theory. This is a wide-spread problem in science.

To seemingly change the subject, I started out to edit the WP Attachment theory article in mid-Dec. and Fainites kept on interrupting. So I tried to say some things which, I thought, are very basic.

In mammals nursing creates proximity.

for example. And it was rejected out of hand. I would like to write a section on Infant Attachment--because it's the foundation of all further relations of attachment. I would include some basics of mammalian behavior--basic stuff that gets taught in first year biology. But if WP editors can't hear some basics what should I do? I thought it would be better to work out some understandings on the Talk pages first.Margaret9mary 03:01, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Implicit because it is not explicitly stated. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 22:54, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Try making suggested proposed additions, changes and deletions first on the talk page to elicit comments and improvements. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 22:54, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Neelam

Hi, Dr Art.

Im Neelam doing my M.Phil. My research area is irrational beliefs. Can you please help me regarding relevant documents. I ll be grateful.

I'd be glad to help. Why don't you either telephone me or e-mail me. That info in on my website at www.center4familydevelop.com

Attachment and systems theory

After thinking and reading further about Attachment I realized that Bowlby's application of Systems theory to Attachment along with the present misunderstandings concerning Systems theory (under its various names) has greatly complicated something instead of providing the dynamic order that would make it simpler to understand.

Meanwhile I read your 2010 article Treatment for Children with RAD: DDP.In it you mention that in a healthy relationship "the parent regulates the infant's states of arousal to maintain homeostasis." (and that DDP is to help restore this). Also, that a mother's attachment classification is a major influence in the child's, that this argues "for a non-genetic mechanism for the transmission of attachment patterns across generations." I agree with this and believe that Bowlby was trying to convey this. He said that attachment began as a protection from predators, but evolution is very good at piggy-backing other uses on a behavior. So nursing and proximity, homeostatic regulation and learning all become a part of attachment. Bowlby mentions attachment in rat babies. It's an indication he understood that attachment was a long time evolving before it adapted to the specialized needs of large-brained Homo sapians. So I will write on Infant attachment soon, but the issue of Systems theory needs some work first. That sounds like I've bitten off more than I can chew, doesn't it? But Systems theory is not the nightmare of complication that it seems to be at present.Margaret9mary 23:59, March 5, 2011 (UTC) ﻿﻿﻿

Thank you. Yes, the systems theory material does seem like a lot to try to manage in one go. I agree that a more focused approach right now, on infant attachment, may be much more manageable. Keep up the good work. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 16:59, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Jean Mercer just e-mailed me a copy of her 2010 article, Attachment theory and its vicissitudes: Toward an updated theory--which clarifies what Fainites told me that attachment theory had changed somewhat. But ultimately the problem is that the definition of [feedback] control systems that Bowlby had originally included has been left out. And the WP/Wiki articles on Complex systems illustrates that the problem originates in the lack of understanding of non-linear systems.

Meanwhile I've been reading David Bell's The Dynamics of Connection, which has an excellent description of the Evolution of the Brain and the Evolution of Attachment in Chapters 3 and 4. Starting with reptiles, and going step-by-step of what needed to develop to reach human attachmentMargaret9mary 23:46, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

Please explain

Note that your protection of this page would not prevent me from reverting your reversion, since I'm a registered user. As a matter of courtesy, I will refrain from doing so until we've discussed the issue. I would ask that you show similar courtesy to me and other Wikia users by providing a clear explanation of every reversion. This Wiki cannot function without communication between users, and your habit of making unexplained reversions contradicts this principle.

Documenting your changes need not be onerous. If you're removing vandalism (which seems to account for most of your revisions) all you need to do is add the word "vandalism" to the edit summary.

Your comments seemed unreferenced and the # of reverts exceeded policy. I would suggest that cooler heads prevail if all suggested edits are first put on the talk page for discussion and consensus building. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 11:05, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, the only not cool head appears to be yours. You assumed that Rabin's attempts to correct his own dale of death (!) were vandalism and kept reverting his changes his changes without explanation. Then you did the same thing with my changes. Which were not unsourced "comments" but well-sourced biographical information.Isaac32767 01:15, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Rabin was not registered nor did he identify himself as the person in the bio. With all the reverts/edits/changes, over a dozen in one day, by various unregistered users, it seems the best course is to protect the page. If you'd like to suggest any improvements to the article, please do so on the talk page and when consensus is reached, those can be added to the article. Thanks for your comments and I look forward to reading your suggestions on the article talk page. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 11:26, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Please read these pages before performing any more reversions. Help:Reverting

Good advice, I hope all read that and begin making suggestions for article improvement on the talk page so that a consensus can be developed. I look forward to reading your suggested improvements. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 11:27, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Systems theory (biology)

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

None of the various WP and Psychology Wiki articles on Systems Theories describe biological systems that are non-linear, with information systems of feedback and homeostasis. All of the articles confuse linear systems and non-linear systems--biological (living) systems and man-made, artificial systems. Trying to explain non-linear systems in linear terms makes them so impossibly complicated noone can fully understand them.

Some form of 'disambiguation' is needed. This confusion has been going on for over 60 years and an understanding of biological systems is long overdue. Please forgive me for advocating for an end to this confusion.

Linear systems, preferred by engineers because of their relative simplicity and ease in prediction and control, are one directional-- A -> B -> C -> D -> (billiard balls or the domino effect), whereas

Non-linear systems are A <-> B, A <-> C, B <-> C etc. They have the potential of being extremely complex, but have their own internal system of parameters. We don't have to control them. All we have to do is understand how they function in a healthy manner, respect those requirements and let nature do the work.

A simple example is our circulatory system. Blood carries oxygen, water, nutrients, immune system components, waste, etc. All of these systems are subsystems--semi-autonomous, maintaining their own homeostasis; yet they interact and maintain an overall homeostasis. And this is but one subsystem in the overall system of the body. We can study each sub-sub-system but its impossibly complicated to follow the whole of it at one time. Again, we don't have to control them or predict precisely. They are self-regulating. "The principle of homeostasis is...the foundation of all modern physiology" (from the first paragraph of the Introduction to a first-year college textbook of physiology).

More complicated examples include ecosystems--everything from local ecosystems to the whole biosphere.

Biological systems do not function like hard science--chemistry, physics, etc. Biological systems have their own "uncertainty principle." They are reciprocal, self-regulating, self-correcting and even self-healing and self-replicating.

My sources include Gregory Bateson (Steps to an Ecology of Mind) who recognized that the same principle of non-linear systems applied to human relations and social systems (cultures) and John Bowlby (Attachment)who saw that they applied to infant attachment in mother-child relationships. Neither of them gave a full, easy-to-reference definition, but mentioned the underlying principles, often in asides. Marston Bates (The Forest and the Sea) is another source, a book-length explanation of ecosystems.Margaret9mary 03:31, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Again, please excuse me for advocating for an end to this confusion. What can be done about it?Margaret9mary 03:16, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you can begin by putting suggested edits on the talk pages for review and discussion by editors. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 11:26, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Hot potato?

Do you think that what I wrote above is irrelevant? Or is it a hot potato noone wants to deal with? Or is it a muddle noone knows how to straighten out?

I wrote something brief that was reverted immediately; I wrote on Talk pages and was ignored. I came across an unresolved discussion on the Talk page of Complex system which was similar to my position. It provides sufficient evidence that Nonlinear Systems are not understood by many in the fields of systems theory. And one only has to read the dozen or so articles on WP and Psychology Wiki that involve systems theory--and are made unnecessarily complicated by linear thinking--to suspect that that is the problem.

Linear thinking is used by engineers, in the hard sciences and by scientists using the classical paradigm of science of the 1800s. Nonlinear thinking is needed for studying living systems in biology.

Bateson described nonlinear thinking as an ordering of what to the Newtonian looks like chaos..." Nonlinear systems have patterns that are not precise cycles. They have negative feedback and positive feedback and they have negentropy that overrides the second law of thermodynamics.

P.S. What is Wikia? Its format looks like WP and Psychology Wiki but you and Dr. Joe are not listed among the administrators.Margaret9mary 02:00, March 18, 2011 (UTC

Questions

Is Attachment theory a multidisciplinary theory? Is the human attachment behavioral system a part of evolution? Is it a part of a continuum of mammalian behavior? Is the capacity for social behavior established genetically but adaptable to different cultural systems or is attachment behavior in humans primarily determined culturally?

Jean Mercer emailed me her article Attachment Theory and its Vicissitudes (2010), which reviews developments in Attachment theory. She mentions an abandoning of ethological analysis and says that Attachment theory "gradually found to be incapable of generating testable hypotheses that could explain puzzling observations." However her article doesn't explain specifically why these decisions were made.

These raise many questions. When Bowlby was first assembling the concepts of Attachment theory in the 1950s he had no empirical studies to back it up but Harry Harlow was doing lab experiments with rhesus babies that were an early confirmation of AT and Mary Ainsworth soon developed the Strange Situation. Why are present-day Attachment researchers unable to develop testable hypotheses? If attachment is a continuum of mammalian behavior with the larger human neocortex why is ethology being abandoned?

I'd been puzzling over Attachment theory for over 2 months before I realized that Human "systems theories" are very different from Ecosystems which are part of an interactive unitary biosphere and spent over a month in that chaotic mess.

I bought the Handbook of Attachment--1000 pages of smalltype without a clear definition of what Attachment involves. I read a number of the articles and no wonder there are such problems! Inge Bretherton's article said more years ago.

The most notable aspect of Bowlby's theory was his capacity to see the whole of the puzzle and identify the pieces and how they fit together--evolution, ethology, ecosystems theory (even if he didn't use that term, his insistence on ethology made that clear). And ultimately there seems to be a lack of Neutrality in the WP/Psychology Wiki articles--an abandoning of Bowlby's insights and eliminating them. That raises even more questions.Margaret9mary 23:22, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ask you this, but whether attachment theory is part of evolution.

i.e. Is the potential for attachment, like the potential for language, genetically determined but must develop postnatally?

I have been aware of nonanswers for months and wonder what is going on in the field of attachment theory. It seems that much isn't being discussed openly--like a hostile divorce instead of goodwill efforts to work through differences.

Jean Mercer's comments of changes due to the difficulty of generating testable hypotheses is serious. Long ago Gregory Bateson recognized that the behavioral sciences were in danger of getting stuck in a dead end that would prevent errors from being corrected and progress from being made (see the Intro to Steps to an Ecology of Mind) and it seems that has happened. Finding how to get unstuck is of vital importance.

But is this due to ideological/worldview disputes, or power struggles, or to methodology?

AN URGENT REQUEST

What I ask is that all of you consider the children. In our era we have taken on a vast social experiment with no systematic study or controls. Increasing numbers of children are being put in child care, sometimes as early as 2 weeks old and there is no clear knowledge of the effects of this over 3-4 generations. But we are seeing a slow erosion of the ability to sustain lifelong relationships and accountability to society, and a rise in antisocial behavior. Humanity needs a better understanding of infant attachment now.Margaret9mary 22:55, April 8, 2011 (UTC)